Replies

FINDLAW defines marriage as:

"1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law " ("Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law,' Copyright 1994-1999..

Apparently the word already has a legal definition and can't be altered to include unions between two people of the same sex.

I wonder what the compelling reason would be for two people of the same sex who would want to use a label that will incorrectly define their relationship/contract?

So you're saying legal definitions can't be altered? I don't think so! Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there wasn't any Federal definition regarding one man and one woman until DOMA passed in 1996.

BTW, did you notice the Findlaw link listed TWO definitions? You may have a third one after the Massachusetts SJC rules.

Definitional semantics aside, why wouldn't same-sex couples have the same reasons for getting married as opposite-sex couples?

Like I said, a narrowly-defined compelling state interest needs to be demonstrated to justify withholding the fundamental right of marriage from same-sex couples.

Marriage isn't the immutable institution many think it is. Interfaith and interracial marriages used to be taboo and now they're commonplace.